Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;331:1234 (26 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.38603.375856.68 (published 7 October 2005)
Maggie Mort, senior lecturer1, Ian Convery, lecturer in human geography2, Josephine Baxter, research associate1, Cathy Bailey, research officer3
1 Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT, 2 University of Central Lancashire, 3 International Centre for the Uplands, Lancaster University
Correspondence to: M Mort m.mort{at}lancaster.ac.uk
Objectives To understand the health and social consequences of the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic for a rural population.
Design Longitudinal qualitative analysis.
Setting North Cumbria, the worst affected area in Britain.
Sample Purposive sample of 54 respondents divided in six demographically balanced rural occupational and population groups.
Main outcome measures 3071 weekly diaries contributed over 18 months; 72 semistructured interviews (with the 54 diarists and 18 others); 12 group discussions with diarists
Results The disease epidemic was a human tragedy, not just an animal one. Respondents' reports showed that life after the foot and mouth disease epidemic was accompanied by distress, feelings of bereavement, fear of a new disaster, loss of trust in authority and systems of control, and the undermining of the value of local knowledge. Distress was experienced across diverse groups well beyond the farming community. Many of these effects continued to feature in the diaries throughout the 18 month period.
Conclusions The use of a rural citizens' panel allowed data capture from a wide spectrum of the rural population and showed that a greater number of workers and residents had traumatic experiences than has previously been reported. Recommendations for future disaster management include joint service reviews of what counts as a disaster, regular NHS and voluntary sector sharing of intelligence, debriefing and peer support for front line workers, increased community involvement in disposal site or disaster management, and wider, more flexible access to regeneration funding and rural health outreach work.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses